Sharing an observation about atheism here on RF

[Cephus]

Ooh, ooh. I found one. A little easy to be honest. (Sort of like finding waldo on the cover).

Where is it? I made no claims that I can see. Statements are not claims.

 

[Augustus]

Where is it? I made no claims that I can see. Statements are not claims.

"atheism is the default position because, unless someone changes their minds somewhere down the road, that is what everyone will remain from birth."

Can you explain the claim 'unless someone changes their minds...'?

 

[Cephus]

Look at the research in the field of the cognitive science of religion.

I have, quite in depth, actually. I've found that most of the claims made are fallacious and unjustifiable. A lot of them try to focus what is a broad system of study into something narrow and focused solely on religion, the "God Gene" nonsense. We have no genes specifically focused on gods. We are pattern seeking animals. We want to answer questions, even questions with no current answers. We don't like not knowing things. That's why people make things up to cover their current ignorance. That's why people invent gods, the same way they invented sea monsters, to explain why that ship never came back. It's why we can look up at the clouds and see shapes. Most of us realize that it's an artifact of the mind but some people go crazy and think that what they see actually means something. There is something wrong with those people.

Regarding this question, someone could look at the peer-reviewed research that is currently being done into questions such as 'Is belief in god natural?' or 'Are humans predisposed to believing in god?', which often reaches a different, although certainly not uniformly agreed on, conclusion to you.

Everything is natural. We have no evidence whatsoever of anything that is not natural. That's a rather ridiculous field of study, but hey, if they can con someone into funding it, it can't be any worse than studying cat farts or whatever. They can study whatever they want, but their conclusions are only as good as their data, and more importantly, their interpretation of the data and so far, at least for the studies I've seen, those interpretations have been very poor. They are looking for excuses to defend religion, a clear bias before they even begin.

From history we know that humans have created many religions and gods independently of each other, we know that belief in god is enduring and resistant to change, we have modern research looking at how the functioning of the mind can lead to religious belief.

Yup, we sure do, the overwhelming majority come from ancient times and have been passed down through the ages. There are very few modern religions that have gained any kind of traction that didn't start out as scams, like Mormonism and Scientology. People aren't making up many new religions, they're just going with what people have been indoctrinated into for generation after generation.

From this I might conclude that beliefs about god could possibly form organically in the mind, rather than only ever being an unnatural 'virus', introduced by a malicious agent.

Then you shouldn't have any problems pointing one out, should you?

Or, alternatively, I could take the word of the internet's Cephus, who asserts that people only believe in gods due to indoctrination, despite presenting zero evidence in support of this claim (while demanding evidence from others).

You can believe what you want to believe, but the only thing that matters is the truth.

If one was being rational, even relentlessly so, would it not be more reasonable to agree with the statement 'Given history and current scientific understanding, there is a reasonable possibility that belief in god forms from the normal cognitive functioning or the human brain' rather than simply assert that 'If a baby is never introduced to a belief in gods, they will never have a belief in gods.'

But that's true of ANY proposition. If a baby is never introduced to the concept of computers, they will never believe in computers. If a baby never encounters the concept of kangaroos, they will n ever believe that kangaroos exist. The same goes for leprechauns and unicorns and fairies. All of these are human-created concepts, they must be introduced by humans, or in human sources, to be passed along. You just desperately want an exception made for gods when there's no reason to think that there is.

I know your ideological perspective makes you want to believe the latter is true, but is it really so self-evident?

Yes, if you're not as biased as you seem to be. Religion is nothing special. It's just as mythical as all other mythical beliefs.

 

[Cephus]

"atheism is the default position because, unless someone changes their minds somewhere down the road, that is what everyone will remain from birth."

Can you explain the claim 'unless someone changes their minds...'?

They are born an atheist. Unless they change their minds and adopt some religious mindset, they will remain an atheist. Basic logic. Are you unschooled in that?

 

[Augustus]

That's why people invent gods, the same way they invented sea monsters, to explain why that ship never came back. It's why we can look up at the clouds and see shapes. Most of us realize that it's an artifact of the mind but some people go crazy and think that what they see actually means something.

So people invent gods, or people only believe in gods because they are indoctrinated to believe in them? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Whether or not it is an artifact of the mind is completely irrelevant. I'm not arguing for the objective existence of gods.

If a baby is never introduced to the concept of computers, they will never believe in computers.

Is there a well documented history of multiple, independent sources over thousands of years of human history creating the concept of computers?

All of these are human-created concepts, they must be introduced by humans, or in human sources, to be passed along.

Apparently, you still haven't grasped the difference between belief in a specific god(s) and belief in any god(s). Being 'passed along' makes no difference.

How did the 'first god' get invented if a baby that is never introduced to god will never believe in god?

 

[Augustus]

They are born an atheist. Unless they change their minds and adopt some religious mindset, they will remain an atheist. Basic logic. Are you unschooled in that?

Earlier today, I went to a little stall in the street where Rizal took a link out of my watch strap. It cost the equivalent of $0.50 and took about 3 minutes.

Have you changed your mind?

 

[leibowde84]

Is it unique to (certain) atheists on RF that they make claims whilst denying that they are actually making a claim?

I can't think of any other group who specifically and consistently denies that what they said actually constitutes a claim rather than simply being the denotation of objective fact.

I'll try to make this more simple for you.

"God does not exist" = a claim ("strong atheist")
"I can't say for sure either way, but I have not been convinced to believe that God exists, but I'm open to the possibility" = not a claim ("weak atheist")
"I am a child who has never been introduced to the idea of God, thus I lack belief in God." = not a claim ("implicit atheist")

 

[leibowde84]

They are born an atheist. Unless they change their minds and adopt some religious mindset, they will remain an atheist. Basic logic. Are you unschooled in that?

Seems pretty logical to me.

 

[Augustus]

I'll try to make this more simple for you.

"God does not exist" = a claim ("strong atheist")
"I can't say for sure either way, but I have not been convinced to believe that God exists, but I'm open to the possibility" = not a claim ("weak atheist")
"I am a child who has never been introduced to the idea of God, thus I lack belief in God." = not a claim ("implicit atheist")

Something said in context is very different to that which is said out of context.

For example, I have never seen a child who has not been introduced to the concept of god posting on RF, so wouldn't use it to make a point on RF regarding something said in context.

Or when someone has posted multiple claims about atheism in a thread, yet in the same thread states that they have never made any claims about atheism, it is very different than talking about hypothetical implicit atheism and it's claims or lack thereof.

 

[leibowde84]

Or when someone has posted multiple claims about atheism in a thread, yet in the same thread states that they have never made any claims about atheism, it is very different than talking about hypothetical implicit atheism and it's claims or lack thereof.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't say that he never made claims ABOUT atheism. He was arguing that atheism, itself, does not make any claims, necessarily.

And, can you explain what this means:

For example, I have never seen a child who has not been introduced to the concept of god posting on RF, so wouldn't use it to make a point on RF regarding something said in context.

 

[Augustus]

Correct me if I'm wrong

You're wrong.

Verbatim: "I see very few people making arguments regarding atheism. I never do."

I changed it to claims as most of them weren't actually arguments, just claims. I assumed that he wasn't meaning 'I only make claims about atheism', I stand to be corrected though.

 

[Kirran]

But your wrong. It is not via medium of perception. IT IS the observation of facts, to the point it cannot be refuted.

In other words, just perception is not a fact.


Yes we can verify truth.


Anything else is a cop out for some personal reason, and I hope its not willful ignorance.

Different assumptions, basically. I don't make the assumption that the explanation of a phenomenon need be the absolute truth, this would be a form of empiricism, I think, and I don't think empiricism makes sense. But I don't this it is unreasonable to assume the validity of empiricism, only I do not do so myself.

If I was in a dream, I could swear blind that anything proved to me there was completely true. Because all the evidence would be in front of me. But actually, my information-gathering mechanisms, also being within the dream, would be flawed, and so the assumption that anything I learned could be accurate would also be flawed.

I basically refrain from making that assumption now, as I have no way of knowing for sure that we are not ultimately experiencing things through an entirely or partially flawed set of information-gathering mechanisms.

 

[Cephus]

So people invent gods, or people only believe in gods because they are indoctrinated to believe in them? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Modern people believe in gods because they have been indoctrinated. Ancient people had reasons to invent gods, they had very little actual knowledge about the world around them, every time there was lightning, they thought it was an angry god. Every eclipse was a god expressing displeasure. When someone died, it was a sign from above. Today, we know better. The gap that gods have traditionally been stuffed into has gotten continually smaller, until today, it's essentially esoteric. People have been conditioned to believe in things for which there is no actual evidence, only an emotional desire, but your desires have no bearing on what is actually so.

Whether or not it is an artifact of the mind is completely irrelevant. I'm not arguing for the objective existence of gods.

Ultimately, that's all that really matters. If you're not arguing that gods are objectively real, then there is no reason to believe in them at all. In fact, if your position is that gods are not objectively real, then it is easy to prove that belief in these non-existent gods is harmful, lots of people pray for things instead of actually getting up and working toward them. This is especially dangerous when you're praying for healing over going to legitimate doctors. Not only is this a worthless waste of time, it's hazardous to rely on wishful thinking to solve your problems.

Is there a well documented history of multiple, independent sources over thousands of years of human history creating the concept of computers?

And there you go with the special pleading. Take virtually any concept that man has invented and you can apply the same question.

Apparently, you still haven't grasped the difference between belief in a specific god(s) and belief in any god(s). Being 'passed along' makes no difference.

There are no people who have beliefs in non-specific gods. None. If someone invented a god out of whole cloth this morning, it wouldn't be some vague, undefined god, it would be specific, with particular characteristics. Even deists believe their gods, vague as they are, have some specific characteristics.

How did the 'first god' get invented if a baby that is never introduced to god will never believe in god?

History. You need to learn some.

 

[Cephus]

Earlier today, I went to a little stall in the street where Rizal took a link out of my watch strap. It cost the equivalent of $0.50 and took about 3 minutes.

Have you changed your mind?

That has nothing at all to do with what I said.

 

[Cephus]

You're wrong.

Verbatim: "I see very few people making arguments regarding atheism. I never do."

I changed it to claims as most of them weren't actually arguments, just claims. I assumed that he wasn't meaning 'I only make claims about atheism', I stand to be corrected though.

And you have been, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[Augustus]

That has nothing at all to do with what I said.

When you learn something that you have previously been ignorant of it doesn't constitute changing your mind. When you decide something about which you previously held no view, it doesn't constitute changing your mind.

You are implying that everybody reaches a decision to be an atheist and then rejects this position to become a theist, thus 'changing their mind'.

Serang is the capital of Banten, have you now changed your mind on what the capital of Banten is?

History. You need to learn some.

Please do explain how the first person to believe in god can result from your assumed 'fact' that "a baby that is never introduced to god will never believe in god".

Missed that part in the history books I've read.

 

[Curious George]

Where is it? I made no claims that I can see. Statements are not claims.

Lol, oh so your statements have no claim to truth...good to know.

 

[Curious George]

Is it unique to (certain) atheists on RF that they make claims whilst denying that they are actually making a claim?

I can't think of any other group who specifically and consistently denies that what they said actually constitutes a claim rather than simply being the denotation of objective fact.

If it is not a claim it cannot be fact. A claim is just stating something as true. Without a claim no truth is asserted. How on earth this is possible during communication is a little mind boggling. For, if no truth is asserted that means the statement is gibberish or something else entirely. It will be interesting to see the semantics of this new claim (shh, don't tell them they are making yet another claim) play out.

 

[Katzpur]

Lol, oh so your statements have no claim to truth...good to know.

And very little claim to rationality either.

 

[atanu]

Or many people try to say they"lack belief" when they actually do not for posturing reasons.

Yes. This discussion has gone to mad levels. Lacking a belief yet arguining endlessly defending the so called lack.